A state appeals court says California can enforce a disability-rights law prohibiting the company that prepares the admissions exam for prospective law students from notifying law schools that a test-taker was given extra time or other accommodations because of an impairment.

The law, passed in 2012, targeted the nonprofit Law School Admission Council's practice of "flagging" scores of disabled students. The council administers the Law School Admission Test to 100,000 applicants a year nationwide and sends the results to more than 200 schools in the United States, Canada and Australia.

As required by disability laws, the council accommodates students with documented physical or mental impairments that affect their test-taking without necessarily reflecting a lesser ability to study or practice law. Accommodations may include large print or Braille, longer rest breaks, or, most commonly, additional time to take the test.

When it forwards those scores, however, the council does not include the usual information on how the applicant fits in the nationwide rankings, and instead tells the law school that the test was given under "nonstandard conditions" and the scores shouldn't be compared to others.

The state law, which applies to California test-takers, was supported by disability-rights groups who said flagging discourages disabled applicants from asking for accommodations, which law schools might use to downgrade their scores.

A Sacramento County judge issued an injunction against enforcement of the state law in February 2013, saying the state doesn't ban flagging by companies that give the medical school entrance exam or the Scholastic Aptitude Test for college admissions. But the Third District Court of Appeal allowed the law to remain in effect while the state appealed, and issued a ruling Monday that overturned the judge's order.

The state is entitled to set different standards for different professions' admissions tests, Justice Andrea Hoch said in the 3-0 ruling. She said the American Bar Association has found that the practice discourages qualified students from becoming lawyers.

The central issue in the case is whether California violates freedom of speech by restricting the council's communications with law schools. That depends, Hoch said, on whether the practice of flagging test scores conveys accurate information about the effect of accommodations or amounts to unfair discrimination. That question has not yet been resolved and should go to trial, she said.

Attorney Claudia Center of San Francisco's Legal Aid Society, who represented disability-rights groups in the case, said flagging violates discrimination laws and privacy rights, and she is pleased the court has maintained California's ban on the practice.